OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!
848 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 30 31 32 33 34 Newer→ Last
-
DexterX, in reply to
The Govt making heaps of revenue is a good thing how??
The profit on what, and what profits are taxed unfairly and why do you think that??
Do you see capital loss as being productive, and do you actually favour capital values being lost ??I still can't see the point of CGT and the consquences.
I thought it was because you liked to get together with a bunch of like minded ( I would use weak but I am being polite) pitch fork wavers and scare people who owned wide screen TVs - exemptions of course provided to former Labour Ministers.
So in a NUTSHELL you support more tax, less ownership and more government.
Do you think the Labour Colaition will be able to taxes its way out of the downturn/recession??.
-
How about that weather, then
-
The Govt making heaps of revenue is a good thing how??
Some options: to pay off debt, to reduce other taxes, to spend on health or other services, to provide incentives. These are bad things how?
I still can’t see the point
It’s okay, no one expects you to.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
The Govt making heaps of revenue is a good thing how??
Priceless.
-
On the basis of the evidence provided, isn't time to turn off the life-support mechanism on this mythical creature?
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Former Auckland C&R councillor (and supposed historian) Paul Goldsmith shows the type of fundamental ignorance likely to mark any discussions about Treaty issues this election year.
Speaking of the irony that burns, though, the ad in the middle of that page was for Maori TV :-D
-
And why is it that you can only "like" or "report" Harold comments? Gradations of "dislike" to "apoplexy-inducing disgust" would be most utilitarian.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Gradations of “dislike” to “apoplexy-inducing disgust” would be most utilitarian.
Wouldn't do any good, I suspect. They wouldn't compute. Try going against the trend with comments, and somehow they get lost....
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
It look like you are telluing me what to do.
You're right, I am. Because you don't appear to be considering things beyond a very narrow perspective, and that doesn't help your argument. I'm trying to help you, though goodness only knows why!
If you want some info you could go to budget 2010 fact sheets on the removal of depreciation and the funding that is being allocated to IRD to ensure there is compliance.
And those will tell me what, exactly, that I don't already know and haven't already mentioned here?
With all that is being done to ensure that people (also those who “trade in property”) comply with the law and pay tax on their effective capital gains I can’t see the point of introducing a CGT/Land Tax.
We know you don't see the point, but your reasoning appears to be akin to saying that we don't need to do anything to tackle drunk drivers because there are laws making it a crime and advertising programs about the dangers. Every time you've been asked, you fall back to waving IRD's information booklets to explain why avoidance of tax on capital gains is not a problem.
If you want to see the movement in rents go and search the Dept of Building and Housing.
DBH have investigated the medium- and long-term effects on rents of the implementation of a CGT? That'd be the only analysis that would interest me, since it's the analysis that would explain your determined position that rents will increase at a persistently (as opposed to a short-term jump that then settles down) greater rate with a CGT than without. So far you have provided no analysis to support your assertion.
Some of the things you adamantly ask are inane, it is like being asked, “Who do you think will wing the 2011 election? An answer is provided and then one is asked to provide proof of the 2011 election, an event which hasn’t happened.
You're the one who's stating with great confidence that NZ First will win the 2011 election, if we're going to carry this analogy, but you're not prepared to explain why you're so sure. Saying simply that you believe it is so isn't satisfying us, if you hadn't noticed.
I have said why I hold the opinion as to why I don’t support CGT and asset sales as:
1) they won’t help grow the economy
2) they will increase the costs of living in rents and higher power prices.Can’t you handle that other people hold different opinions.
I can, but in this case I want to understand why your opinion is different because if you can explain it you may, possibly, perhaps, convince me that your position has merit. So far your only explanation is to claim your own authority. That's not how you persuade others, in the absence of some kind of demonstrable authority such as a PhD in economics specialising in taxation effects; authority you have not claimed, and would have to prove were you to try.
-
The Govt making heaps of revenue is a good thing how??
Right at the moment, I think it would be good because we could actually balance the government's books, reducing debt, and removing excuses to sell off things we paid to build that make heaps of money.
The profit on what, and what profits are taxed unfairly and why do you think that??
I presume you're addressing BEN2? If so, for fucks sake, stop being obtuse. The profit on buying and selling property. Like everyone has been talking about. Like CGT is designed to address. It's taxed unfairly in a lot of cases, by which I mean it's not taxed at all. I think that because I know a lot of people who have done it, and made fucking fortunes and the only input they had was ownership of some capital at some point. What the fuck is hard to understand about this? Have you seriously never met anyone who has used this tax loophole? Perhaps I just know a few more people than usual, since the family fortune comes from property development and investment, and it's been discussed in great detail since I was on my mother's knee.
Which means I have a lot to lose by this tax, actually. I'm not just rubbing my hands with glee at swelling government coffers. I'm saying this shit because I take the same attitude as my fortune-making grandfather who paid colossal taxes and never grizzled at all about it - he considered it a fair return for living in a society that had made him stupidly rich, and he sincerely believed in funding a better society for his children, and also other people's children.
Do you see capital loss as being productive, and do you actually favour capital values being lost ??
Fucking hell. CGT is not a tax on capital losses, otherwise it would be called CLT. So this is a non-sequitur. But I'll certainly address the flipside of this - I don't really see capital gains as being productive, no. Not in themselves. The only thing I see as productive is production. If capital gains accrue from actual production, then I'm much more favorably disposed to them than I am to capital gains that are just from owning capital, charging people to use it, and waiting.
-
Yes - but they never really do retire debt.
-
Sacha, in reply to
capital gains that are just from owning capital, charging people to use it, and waiting
I like this. It's one of the most offensive things about current arangements - the class of people being rewarded just for *waiting*, often while they loudly chestbeat about being hardworking masters of the universe.
-
Sacha, in reply to
they never really do retire debt
Cullen did - right down to zero net government debt, before the handover into English's hands. Next.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Cullen did - right down to zero net government debt, before the handover into English's hands. Next.
Yes, and he got the shit kicked out of him on a daily basis by National over this too. Imagine how screwed NZ would be if he hadn't done it. Every year the Nats screamed that we needed to increase debt to encourage growth. If we'd done as they demanded, with many a "You Grinch, where's my Christmas?", the country would be actually bankrupt right now.
-
To Matthew and Ben
Matthew - I have never said NZ First will wing the election - I think if there is a NZ First coalition with Labour it may be a very bad thing indeed. Should Winston make a strong come back Labour may still miss out in spite of the collapse of the Maori Party the comeback may be at Labour's expense with Key's position. If Winston goes into coalition with Labour he may put to bed this CGT nonsense.
So Ben you are against owning capital and charging other people to use it. - I wonder do you think it should be free?
I wonder how many economists, even those with Phds, Treasury officials predicted the looming GFC - not many. They were too far up their collective theoretical ………..
The government making “heaps” is not a good thing - as it takes money out of circulation and will contract the productive section of the economy - the bit that provides jobs to people who don't work in the government, the ones that suffer most in a recession.
People pay enough tax as it is, the GST tax increase was a real success wasn't it, Not.
As I said before
The budget forecast for the tax revenue from the removal of deprecation are approx $685 mill a year for the next 4 years and the tax revenue from audit activity is likely to be $210 mill – a portion of that will be derived from ppty.
Anything taxation in relation to ppty that exceeds this approach is wanton – you have nearly a billion dollars that wasn’t their before. A government that does more than this will create adverse social consequence in the form of increased rents and increased prices the brunt of which will be born by those earning under the median wage as a 100% or more of their wage is used up in meeting their living expenses..
Good for you, has the better society your grandad wanted from his colossal tax payments eventuated? If it didn’t wanted stopped it from happening?
I don’t support CGT and asset sales as:
1) they won’t help grow the economy
2) they will increase the costs of living in rents and higher power prices. -
turnips
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Between his ears? Or are you explaining the cogency of his response relative to the questions to which he was "responding"?
-
the world needs more turnips. because I say so. that is all
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I have never said NZ First will wing the election
*sigh* You started the analogy, with
it is like being asked, “Who do you think will wing the 2011 election? An answer is provided and then one is asked to provide proof of the 2011 election, an event which hasn’t happened.
I simply took that analogy and ran with it. I never said you said that NZF would win the election. I just took a minimally-probable outcome of a future event of your choosing (it was you who mentioned the election, not me), and used to analogously as an in-context response to your continued inability to articulate reasons for your assertions around outcomes of future events.
-
Stop. Feeding. The. Troll
33 pages is more than enough.
If he's genuine, he's not going to change his invincibly ignorant viewpoint.
Evidence will not do it; his view is not evidence-based.
If he's a troll, then he's winning.In the words of Roy Batty, "Time to die".
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I’m glad someone else said it first. I had to make do with hinting in a marginally oblique fashion a couple of pages hence.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Stop. Feeding. The. Troll
Yep. Or all talk about turnips. Seems only fair.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I’m glad someone else said it first.
I believe I got mildly told off for noting the pattern many pages ago.
-
So Ben you are against owning capital and charging other people to use it. - I wonder do you think it should be free?
No. I'm not against owning capital. I'm not even against profiting from owning capital. But I don't think it's productive, so I don't see why it should be exempt from taxation. That only adds to the already very high incentive to just own and cream it. I'm not against even productive activities paying taxation for profits - I sure pay enough myself for producing software, and think that's fair. But I definitely value productive activity much more than I value ownership. Of course, looking after myself involves increasing my ownership, but I'm happy to continue doing that by being a producer. I even dream of a day when I've accrued so much that I could sit back and let profits roll in, but being an entrepreneur, I doubt that would keep me really happy for long. And certainly the government should get a decent cut of it, so they can make society better.
If I were redesigning society, perhaps I'd be against capital. But I think it's much safer to move towards private capital being less of a factor gradually. I don't want to string up capitalists, considering I'd end up swinging myself - I just want them to pay fair tax.
The government making “heaps” is not a good thing - as it takes money out of circulation and will contract the productive section of the economy
It doesn't take it out of circulation - the government spends most of the money it takes, which maximizes circulation. As for the "productive section of the economy" you'll note that this tax is not on production. It's on capital growth, which as already discussed, is not synonymous with production.
Good for you, has the better society your grandad wanted from his colossal tax payments eventuated? If it didn’t wanted stopped it from happening?
Yes, it has. We have a considerably more developed and fair country than we did in his time. Education is a norm, all of my grandparents were incredibly proud that not only their children but also their grandchildren are educated to very high levels, and (with the exception of the starving artist), employed in well paying and satisfying work. They were lucky to finish high school. Industry has diversified. Health care has blossomed. People don't starve, the way they did during the Depression he lived through. Getting around is much easier, thanks to all the roads we've made. Women can work if they want to. Maori tribes have got some big pieces of their stolen land back. Gays don't have to hide in shame.
What has got worse, though, is the attitude towards wealth. We've developed a reverence for it that his generation unlearned during the Great Depression. I suggest that we learn from the mistakes of the past and unlearn it quick smart this time, lest we are plunged deeper into the Depression and the catastrophe that followed it.
Stop. Feeding. The. Troll
I'm not so sure Dex is trolling. He's just not slotting into the norms of debate we've got used to, where you answer questions people ask, and move forward. Trolling is more characterized by deliberate antagonism, typically through personal attacks...he's polite enough. But I'm certainly over hearing his 2 numbered points every single post, like we didn't get that's what he thinks right from the first comments.
-
Trolling is characterised by disingenuous argument. Seen enough of that, thanks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.